Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Legal Lots of news about Apple vs. Samsung (and vice versa) in both the US and Europe today. In the US, judge Koh dealth two blows: one to Samsung (no retrial based on juror misconduct), the other to Apple (no permanent sales ban). In Europe, in the meantime, Samsung announced it will cease all lawsuits injunction requests against Apple... But only in Europe.
Thread beginning with comment 545742
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

Its interesting how people who have been wrong about every facet of this trial could so boldly make such a prediction.


How so?

It's been widely known for a long time that the Judge has been favoring Apple in her decisions. If you keep up with the case you can very well see it. This just seems to be more of the same; while yes not everything Apple asked for was granted, it also seems to be along the lines of "well, I can't give you this because the law doesn't allow it". Wear as for Samsung it's more like "I don't like you, don't believe you, so here go ask someone else."

Samsung actually has quite a few things ready in the appellate bucket that can very easily change the case.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It can't possibly be the fact that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent. Nope, not at all.

Face it, the way they handled this trial from start to finish was foolish. A lot of what came back to bite them was their own doing. If they made themselves a bed of nails, they have no right to complain about back pain.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

How so?


Your claim is that this was anticipated because the judge is making decisions based on a predetermined proportional measurement. This is pure delusion. Even a legitimately, corrupt judge working illegally to benefit one party isn't stupid enough to use a ratio to make rulings. You have to be the biggest fool in the world to believe that anyone else would believe that such an argument is widely held. I don't even know someone who generally agrees with you on prinicple who thinks this was aniticipated based on some past ratio of rulings. This is how stupid and foolish your justifications are.

People widely believed this would be overturned because it is difficult to overturn a jury verdict and there has been very little evidence presented by Samsung to suggest that they could ever get anyone to overturn this verdict.

It's been widely known for a long time that the Judge has been favoring Apple in her decisions.


Nonsense. Apple-haters, patent-haters, Florian-Mueller-haters, and self-deluded groklaw-lovers have fooled themselves into believing so. By no means is this a widely held opinion.

If you keep up with the case you can very well see it. This just seems to be more of the same; while yes not everything Apple asked for was granted, it also seems to be along the lines of "well, I can't give you this because the law doesn't allow it". Wear as for Samsung it's more like "I don't like you, don't believe you, so here go ask someone else."


It's pretty clear that I've followed this case more closely than you from your comments, and no, I don't see what you see. Your paraphrasing of how you perceive Koh's views toward Samsung speak volumes in themselves.

Samsung actually has quite a few things ready in the appellate bucket that can very easily change the case.


You'll be clinging to your excuses even when all appeals have been exhausted and you have utterly, definitively been proven wrong. See you in a few years.

Edited 2012-12-18 20:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"How so?


Your claim is that this was anticipated because the judge is making decisions based on a predetermined proportional measurement. This is pure delusion. Even a legitimately, corrupt judge working illegally to benefit one party isn't stupid enough to use a ratio to make rulings. You have to be the biggest fool in the world to believe that anyone else would believe that such an argument is widely held. I don't even know someone who generally agrees with you on prinicple who thinks this was aniticipated based on some past ratio of rulings. This is how stupid and foolish your justifications are.
"

I never said she set out to do a certain ratio. Only that that there is a ratio that significantly favors Apple.

People widely believed this would be overturned because it is difficult to overturn a jury verdict and there has been very little evidence presented by Samsung to suggest that they could ever get anyone to overturn this verdict.


Yes, it is difficult to overturn a jury verdict. However, there has been enough said and enough evidence presented to call the verdict into question - a question that can only be answered through a new trial.

"It's been widely known for a long time that the Judge has been favoring Apple in her decisions.


Nonsense. Apple-haters, patent-haters, Florian-Mueller-haters, and self-deluded groklaw-lovers have fooled themselves into believing so. By no means is this a widely held opinion.
"

Let's see:

Florian Mueller is one of the biggest FUD producers out there that has pretty much gotten everything wrong about any trial he ever wrote about. He doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to reading courts, and has an obvious bias through being paid by Oracle and Microsoft - usually not revealing so until forced to admit it.

Groklaw - currently being recognized as one of the top 100 law blogs, one of the top 10 technology law blogs, by ABA Journal (http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100).

Hmmm...I think I'll go with Groklaw.

Reply Parent Score: 3